Amongst our left-wing friends, charges of "liberal media bias" scarcely elicit anything but chuckles. As far as our lefty pals are considered, the very words "liberal media bias" are deeply humorous. Those who utter such a phrase without the requisite dollop of irony are seen as nothing but know-nothing hayseeds.

But you needn't take our word for it. Here's an experiment: Walk up to a few liberal acquaintances and inform them that CNN routinely tilts its coverage to the Left. We have a hunch that they'll react to that line of argument as they would to news that you sleep with your first cousin. To their minds, only those with heavy Southern twangs and scarcely few front teeth blather on about the "liberal media."

And we, the crack young staff of "The Hatemonger's Quarterly," find this odd, insofar as charges of "right-wing media bias" are, as Paris Hilton might say, hot. Eric Alterman, the ineluctably enraged media critic for The Nation, has even banged out a decent career on the blatantly ridiculous proposition that media bias has a strictly rightward trajectory.

In our world, at least, nary a day passes without our overhearing someone complain about the right-wing bias of Fox News. Apparently, the very folks who never fail to notice examples of conservative media bias simply can't discern any liberal media bias at all.

This, we think, is rather curious--for the following reasons. If you ask us, Fox News has a discernable conservative bias. Never mind its opinion shows, most of which clearly cater more to the Right than to the Left. Take, instead, the political panels found on "Special Report with Brit Hume."

Unlike, say, "The O'Reilly Factor," "Special Report" is clearly pitched as a hard news program. It's "political grapevine" segment, however, tends to rehash stories found on the Drudge Report or conservative "weblogs" that reflect a right-wing worldview. And the show's panels, moderated by the conservative Mr. Hume, most often feature a few conservative pundits (Fred Barnes, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, the more moderate Mort Kondracke) and one liberal NPR ringer.

We don't mention this, dear reader, to build any case against Fox News. As far as we're concerned, Fox News plays a crucial role in contemporary American journalism: It has a sufficient number of viewers to publicize stories that other media outlets would otherwise ignore. Corruption at the UN; unhinged academic radicalism; environmentalist hypocrisy--these and other stories gain traction in liberal journalistic circles thanks to the efforts of Fox News.

But back to the topic of those "Special Report" panels. It should be obvious to any fair-minded observer that they merely amount to the conservative corollary of non-Fox News news programs.

Take, for instance, "This Week" with George Stephonopoulos. The show features a liberal host interviewing a panel of liberals and one conservative (George Will). Or how about Chris Matthews' feculent Sunday talk show? It allows a liberal host to interview a cavalcade of liberal media elites and pundits, and routinely features one or no conservative voice.

The same could be repeated about numerous other shows and networks. Why can't our liberal pals--ever sensitive to the purported wiles of Roger Ailes--recognize this?

(Note: The crack young staff normally "weblog" over at "The Hatemonger's Quarterly," where they're wondering if driving a Prius amounts to a sufficient "carbon offset" for marijuana possession.)

This is a nonsense argument. Everytime I hear that liberals only see bias at Fox News, I know they are either intellectually dishonest, or plain stupid. I have noticed it for two decades. I remember Dan Rathers report in the 90's, whenever action was taken by congress he started the segment with "the republican lead congress today...", it was so obvioud and blatant. I for one am glad I have talk radio, Fox News and the internet. I do not need to depend on the lame stream media or papers. ww

Liberals ARE more monolithic compared to conservatives as proved by the fact that none of their demographics even approach the one mindedness of the, say, black population for obvious,er,instance (half my family's black,trust me). And now, to use the technique of that last little bit of anecdotal myopia, consider with me if you will the following: Liberals commonly state that there can be no "liberal media bias" due to the fact that ABC,NBC,CNN,Time,Newsweek,The NY Times,USA Today et al are all owned by large corporations -as if it is self evident that these corps.,by virtue of their big profit making,inherent evilness,MUST be conservative- so "obviously", could not possibly allow for ANY kind of liberal content to exist on their pro-Bush,propogandistic airwaves,news pages etc.

My 'proof' of the effectiveness of this common liberal mantra? My liberal 'friend', Doug, parrots this same point when any of the above posts' salient points are rudely driven home by me and other insensitive,meatheaded conservatives. Can I get a witness from the kneejerk portion of the congregation?(Sometimes, stereotypes ARE true you know.That's why we laugh at them.)

(sorry about the SHOUTING, haven't mastered the old "tags" thingy yet)

Has Keith Olbermann EVER had someone on his show who disagreed with him from a right wing point of view? At least O'Reilly has people on to argue with. Yes he treats them smugly, but he does that to everyone, even Republicans, so that means nothing.

Robin asked a series of questions in response. Thereis a difference of course. As I can actually prove that one network is run by a former political consultant. She pulled 90%from somewhere, and has no proof tha the number is 90% or 80% or 70% or 60%.

So what if Dubya himself sits on the board of ONE news channel? Can't the... what... five or so other channels (well, six if you count MSNBC and their three viewers) who you tacitly admit are run by lefties "balance" that ONE conservative channel?

You are so afraid of having your lefty excesses exposed that you have FDS as well as BDS. And it shows.

Okay mixti, I'll answer your silly question. It's FOX News, run by Roger Ailes, a consultant for Republicans, including Ronald Reagan and G.H.W. Bush. What else do you want to know?

The fact that Ailes was in the media business before he did that work, is obviously irrelevant.

However, what we do have on the other networks is a former aide to Bill Clinton and Dick Gephardt.

We have another who worked for Daniel Moynihan and Mario Cuomo.

And yet another who worked for four democrat politicians including as a speechwriter for Jimmuh Carter.

All of them pose as neutral political commentators and pundits. None of them work for FOX News.

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the difference between those of us who iike FOX News is we acknowledge that they lean to the right, and that's why we like it. Unlike the other side of this argument who will deny that the other media outlets slant to the left.

Mixti, the numbers of news media that have donated to Democratic campaigns have been made public, go educate yourself.

Meanwhile, the fact remains that CBS actually promoted forged documents to attempt to influence a Presidential election. When Fox News does something so brazenly criminal, then I'll pay attention to you. Pigs will also fly and the Devil will be ordering woolen blankets.